Guns for most, jail for others: A modest proposal

So a week ago, I wrote in this space my wife won’t let me have a gun. As could’ve been predicted, the story went slightly viral, with commenters from all over the country — mostly pro-gun folk — having a field day with my “stance” on guns.

“Grow a pair. Guns are simply tools,” wrote FLGuns.

“Pansy,” added Chadfast.

“Dude you sound pretty spineless,” said Harry.

Well, whatever. Truth be told, and as I mentioned in the column, I don’t really want a gun. I’m not exactly anti-gun, but I’m a far way from pro-gun.

Advertisement

At any rate, I decided to write a second piece on the issue, about what I’d do about guns if I were King of the United States. (Of course, anybody writing about the subject now has to look at the sickening events that happened in Colorado early Friday morning. No need to rehash it here, but … if we had a federal assault weapon ban, the odds of something like that happening would have been sliced. No one can convince me otherwise.)

So what do we do about guns? Assault weapons, handguns, rifles, any gun? There’s no easy answer, and any move to ban weapons is met with the NRA going bananas.

On the other hand, I’m pretty sure even the most hardcore NRA member wouldn’t think it’s a good idea to let anyone have whatever weapon they want. I’ll pass on the idea of seeing everyone walking around with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder.

Is there a happy medium here? I think there may be. Remember, I’m playing this as if I’m King Jeff and can blink the following into existence. So here goes. Five-point plan.

1) If you’re over 21 and without a violent criminal record (or other obvious red flags, like mental issues), you’re allowed to register to be a gun owner. Background checks carried out by some combination of the federal, state and independent agencies. You must go through training on how to use it, and you must be certified. In short, if you want to own a gun, you’ll have to jump through about as many hoops as you already do in getting a driver’s license. To be clear, then: The threshold to gain a gun permit would be relatively low. If you’re an upstanding citizen, you can get a gun permit.

2) That said, if you’ve got a violent criminal record — or the other red flags, or probably a handful of other reasons I can’t come up with right now — then no gun permit for you. Ever. One strike and that’s it.

3) If you get caught in possession of an unregistered gun, or if you own a gun without being registered, you go to jail. For a very long time.

4) If you commit a crime and a gun is involved, you will die in prison.

5) Assault weapons: We’re going to ban those, thank you very much.

See what I’m doing here? I’m splitting the difference. You want a gun? Great. Go get one. Register for it. You don’t register for it? Have fun in jail. You use a gun in a crime, any crime? You’ll spend the rest of your life behind bars. And no, no one needs assault weapons. Really.

Is this plan perfect? Of course not. And I welcome anyone to point out the flaws.

Would this plan have prevented what happened in Colorado? Probably not.

Is it better than what we have now, where the overwhelming majority of states require no background checks, no licensing, no permits, no nothing? I’ll go out on a limb and say “yep.”

(Long aside coming in two seconds because a lot of you are currently screaming, “BUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!”)

Come on. Do you really think, for one second, the Founding Fathers would be OK with the idea of anyone being able to own any “arms” of their choice in today’s day and age without permits or registration or something? If we’re going to take the Constitution at face value, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” would seem to include suitcase nukes. (That’s my “arm” of choice.)

No way the Second Amendment gets written, as is, if the Revolutionary War happened today. No way.

(Long aside over.)

So what do you think of my plan? I’m guessing it makes no one happy on either side of the gun issue.